Apple: Google acquisition means Motorola lost its patent rights

Apple has filed motions to stay two of its Android patent lawsuits against …

Apple has filed motions to stay two of its Android patent lawsuits against Motorola, arguing that Motorola has lost its patent rights because of its pending acquisition by Google.

Apple sued Motorola because of similarities between its Droid smartphones and Apple’s iPhone, but that was before Google decided to spend $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola, a pending merger that would make Google owner of one of the largest smartphone manufacturers and 17,000 mobile patents.

According to patent watcher Florian Mueller, Apple filed stay motions on Friday, claiming that Motorola Mobility has already ceded control over its patents to Google.

“Motorola has ceded control of the most basic rights regarding the patents-in-suit,” Apple’s lawyers wrote in a court filing, according to Mueller. “Absent Google's consent, Motorola cannot: (1) sue for infringement of its patents in any new action; (2) settle pending litigation (including this case) that would require a license to any of its patents; (3) license or sublicense its patents except in limited circumstances relating to the sale of Motorola’s products; (4) assign its rights in its patents; and/or (5) grant a covenant not to sue for infringement of its patents.”

Apple further argues that Google also lacks standing to enforce the patents, Mueller writes. Instead, "Google only has the right to veto actions taken by Motorola with respect to the patents," Apple argued. Apple's stay motions concern one lawsuit filed by Motorola and another filed by Apple, Mueller writes.

Google says its acquisition of Motorola is expected to close by the end of 2011 or early in 2012, pending regulatory review. For Apple, Motorola is just one of its targets in an ongoing effort to stifle Android-based competitors based on intellectual property lawsuits. Most recently, Apple was able to block sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab in Germany because it allegedly infringes upon iPad patents.

Do yourself a favor and read the real analysis from Mueller. But there's absolutely no way that anyone is saying that Motorola has "lost its patent rights" -- the dispute is about standing for litigation.

Sorry, but this whole article missed the point of Apple's statement. It has nothing to do with Apple's Patent suits against Motorola, it has EVERYTHING to do with Motorola's Suits against Apple wich by default would now be Google's patent suits against Apple. Apple is making a last ditch effort to set back the lawsuit process by a couple years by forcing Google to refile a suit and start over again. This whole patent B.S. only has one outcome and that is to self-implode and destroy the whole patent system. It's like a bunch of 3rd graders hired expensive lawyers to protect their marbles. REDICULOUS!! DISBAND THE PATENT OFFICE PLEASE!! it was meant to protect the little guy from the big guy, but now all it does is bankrupt the little guy!!!

Do yourself a favor and read the real analysis from Mueller. But there's absolutely no way that anyone is saying that Motorola has "lost its patent rights" -- the dispute is about standing for litigation.

The really interesting part of this is that Google has not--yet--directly sued anyone over a patent, apparently as that would violate their 'don't be evil' or 'we're so open' slogans. Apple appears to be trying to force their hand, by saying that now Moto is part of Google, Moto can't do the suing, Google itself has to. But Google--apparently--doesn't want to.

So now (assuming Apple's motion goes through) Google is faced with two options, neither of which they want: directly sue Apple, and in doing so, lose some of their 'openness' credibility with fanpersons; or, do nothing, and accept the loss of this patent suit, which might significantly hurt the Motorolla business.

For Apple, Motorola is just one of its targets in an ongoing effort to stifle Android-based competitors based on intellectual property lawsuits.

Ummm...errr...whaaaaaat?

Motorola SUED Apple. Apple counter-sued in defense. Motorola is the aggressor here. How did this even pass editorial review? Does Ars even have editorial review for accuracy?

I remember when Ars was actually a decent site for ACCURATE information. Now it's all just sensationalized, inaccurate crap. May as well change it's name to DailyTech2.com or, more appropriately, AOL.com.

Do yourself a favor and read the real analysis from Mueller. But there's absolutely no way that anyone is saying that Motorola has "lost its patent rights" -- the dispute is about standing for litigation.

I think you are the only one here confused by the headline.

Hey, at least I know I'm confused. You think you understand it, but you don't. The confusing/erroneous part is not in the headline, it is ARS' assertion that "Apple has filed motions to stay two of its Android patent lawsuits against Motorola, arguing that Motorola has lost its patent rights because of its pending acquisition by Google."

Parts that are wrong:1) These are Motorola suits against Apple, not Apple's suits against Motorola2) Apple is not arguing that Motorola has lost any of its rights

The really interesting part of this is that Google has not--yet--directly sued anyone over a patent, apparently as that would violate their 'don't be evil' or 'we're so open' slogans. Apple appears to be trying to force their hand, by saying that now Moto is part of Google, Moto can't do the suing, Google itself has to. But Google--apparently--doesn't want to.

So now (assuming Apple's motion goes through) Google is faced with two options, neither of which they want: directly sue Apple, and in doing so, lose some of their 'openness' credibility with fanpersons; or, do nothing, and accept the loss of this patent suit, which might significantly hurt the Motorolla business.

I don't see what openness has to do with suing or not suing someone. The openness Google seems to cherish is in Android, and it is the least open mobile OS anyway.

I thought Google was buying Motorola Mobility in full, that generally means they assume all assets and all liabilities including ongoing litigation? Google didn't just buy MM's patent portfolio like when the assets of the bankrupt Nortel were auctioned off. I mean if just changing corporate governance stops litigation I'm sure BoA wants to know about that because there's a couple Billion in Countrywide damages they'd like to have back.

If these patents are in fact already transferred to Google from Motorola (which could well be), then Google will simply transfer them back to Motorola for purposes of this lawsuit. In a similar way to how Google transferred some patents to HTC to sue Apple with. Except here it will be even simpler as Google will get them back when it completes the acquisition of Motorola.

So this can only cause a delay in the proceedings, not save Apple from the lawsuit entirely. But perhaps the timeline is important for some reason though, and Apple will benefit from the delay, who knows.

I thought Google was buying Motorola Mobility in full, that generally means they assume all assets and all liabilities including ongoing litigation? Google didn't just buy MM's patent portfolio like when the assets of the bankrupt Nortel were auctioned off. I mean if just changing corporate governance stops litigation I'm sure BoA wants to know about that because there's a couple Billion in Countrywide damages they'd like to have back.

When Google signed the deal with Motorola, they put language in the contract limiting what Motorola can do regarding patents. Apparently, this seems like standard acquisition procedure, so that the "buyee" don't give away the farm pending approval.

Apple is taking advantage of he language in the document. Since Motorola no longer has the power to defend said patents (they signed the rights away). And Google, who also at this time does not really own them and has no beef with Apple regarding the same patents, should not be allowed to continue the suit.Apple wants to delay the trial pending the purchase approval. Google would need to file a new suit or show how they have been aggrieved thru the previous Motorola suit.

I really hopes that makes sense. That is what I got from reading it.

This could also be a nice way for Google to drop this nonsense suit altogether.Edit:added last sentence

Ok... read it twice, but too much legal mumbo jumbo, can someone break it down?

Part a) Moto no longer owns the patents, so moto can't sue anyone new, license someone on a new product under their old patents, and moto can't settle on licenses due on those patents. Essentially, they're stuck in court fighting against apple, but they don't own the patents anymore, so have no legal standing to press them in court against apple, and can't confirm a settlement value if offered. They can't settle the suit with apple on the value of thoser patents (can;t trade them to apple), so they have to fight to the end, and ifg apple wins, it;s punishment only, not cross licence compensation.

Part b) Google didn;t file the case and was not a party to the case in the apple-moto issues, so even though they now own the patents, they did not at the time, and thus cannot have legal standing against apple or any "knowledge" relevent to the case. They can;t file additional motions, not settle the case on moto's behalf.

This is because of the odd conditions of the merger. Moto Mobile and Google are not yet joined (not even close), so Google doesa not own moto and can;t work in court ongoing on their behalf. They don;t have the legal rights over moto to make business decisions. In fact, if they had those rights, and exerted them improperly, moto existing stock holders could sue google on issues of trust or value manipul;ation. At the same time, as a condition OF the merger "application" moto has already legally transfered the patent rights to google. The patents moved, the business legal rights and assets didn;t. This places everything in limbo and locks moto in court, unable to settle, and google unable to assist of file motions. Moto also can;t bail out because it was a counter suit, and would effect negativelty the outcome of apple;s suit against moto.

Apple really has them by the balls here. Google really doesn't understand this patent stuff near enough, and it becomes more evident every day. Its only their own actions that threaten android, and their lack of apparent controls on their partners.

Will apple win or lose? who knows. But, this motion will likely carry, and is a massive setback to moto. Moto's only option may be to drop all cases, concede loss on apple's case, and pay up a massive sum, a sum likely enough to shift google's purchase plan, and likely get moto sued by itl;s own stockholders for selling the rights as they did.

Apple's motion is to have the entire case stayed (essentially paused in place) until Google completes it's aquisition of Motorola.

Why would Apple want this? Because as it stands, due to the terms of the Merger Agreement between Google and Motorola, those patents are limited by whatever decisions Google makes in regards to said patents. The problem is, since Google doesn't own Motorola yet, they have no legal right to direct Motorola in how those patents will be used. So Apple's argument that the rights to use those patents are in limbo. As such, Motorola has no position to sue, or settle any cases. This is important for Apple if they win or lose.

If Apple wins, then theoretically another Android partner can claim in their case with Apple that the agreement reached with Motorola was done when Moto had no legal claim to the patents they settle over. This would weaken Apple's position in those future cases.

If Apple loses, then they'll argue the same thing, that Motorola had no right to make any decisions on those patents since Google owned the rights at the time, and couldn't legally direct them. This would force Apple to appeal as well, and have to attempt to take the case to court again when Google completes it's acquisition.

So basically Apple wants to make sure that no matter the decision that comes out of this case, it cannot be attacked for holes in the way it was tried. We'll see if they're successful with this motion.

If these patents are in fact already transferred to Google from Motorola (which could well be), then Google will simply transfer them back to Motorola for purposes of this lawsuit. In a similar way to how Google transferred some patents to HTC to sue Apple with. Except here it will be even simpler as Google will get them back when it completes the acquisition of Motorola.

So this can only cause a delay in the proceedings, not save Apple from the lawsuit entirely. But perhaps the timeline is important for some reason though, and Apple will benefit from the delay, who knows.

Transfer of the patents back would void the stockholder approved conditions of the merger on both sides, and would force google to pay the substantial (billions) penalty for default. Further, moto in the position it;s in now, they probably don't WANT the patents back. The stockholders are getting their money, win or loss of the suit, and if it comes back, that's no longer a guarantee (in fact, apple's case is strong on THAT suit, they'll probably pay apple billoins to settle, and lose other rights and several of those patents, devaluing the company even more). Moto likely won;t want them back.

Ars wrote too little and the linked article goes too in dept (or just TL;DR).

Middle ground please.

EDIT:

raysireks wrote:

Apple is making a last ditch effort to set back the lawsuit process by a couple years by forcing Google to refile a suit and start over again.

Thank you.Another slimy move my Apple, shoulda known without even understanding the non article here and the too long article that it was linked to.

Actually, that only stops the moto vs apple suits, it does not stop the apple vs moto suit. The delay essentially means, google, owning those patents now, is in a pressure position to retroactively licence them, as well as cross license some notable apple patents, in an effort to settle before moto loses (and that might happen BEFORE the merger, and that would be BAD for google). This would see a massive change of money from google to apple, a few new rights for android, and a royalty paid by google (not manufacturers) on every single android phone sold or to be sold in the future.

Sorry, but this whole article missed the point of Apple's statement. It has nothing to do with Apple's Patent suits against Motorola, it has EVERYTHING to do with Motorola's Suits against Apple wich by default would now be Google's patent suits against Apple. Apple is making a last ditch effort to set back the lawsuit process by a couple years by forcing Google to refile a suit and start over again. This whole patent B.S. only has one outcome and that is to self-implode and destroy the whole patent system. It's like a bunch of 3rd graders hired expensive lawyers to protect their marbles. REDICULOUS!! DISBAND THE PATENT OFFICE PLEASE!! it was meant to protect the little guy from the big guy, but now all it does is bankrupt the little guy!!!

REFORM the office, yes. As was just passed a new review process, now add to that some better rules, but part of the issue isn;t even the USPTO, its the molasses slow progression of these cases in court. The USPTO needs a formal arbitration branck, separate from common court, to resolve these "issues" quickly and in the open before things break down in court.

DISBAND it? Do you even have the slightest concept as to what that would do to the economy? It would near instantly END all large scale research and investment, break every think tank, fragment the shit out of every device platform, and unleash Kirf hell upon earth. Every small inventor would be robbed on every idea they had. Every major company with a marketable idea would lose overnight their rights to defend those products. It simply cannot be undone. Its flawed, yes, but not unfixably, and NOT having it is FAR worse than having even a broken system that allows for such petty actions. Of course, if a better system of due dilligence and patent classification existed in the first place, people would not relese products bound by the patents of others. Better regulation on licensing fees wouldn';t hurt either making licensing reasopnable and not extortive (which is the reason lots of companies fidge the system and try to skirt patents).

I see the usual reflexively anti-Apple dumb asses are out in force tonight. This is nothing more than a stay. Apple is arguing that the legal waters have been muddied because of the terms of the Google-MMI acquisition agreement--that letting the suits go forward at this time will result in a lot of wasted effort since MMI has no standing to litigate or settle these suits. Once the acquisition is completed the suits can then proceed. The original article notes that Apple sought MMI agreement on the stay, but MMI delayed, so Apple filed anyway.

The original article also seems to assert that the merger agreement terms may have been customized to prevent MMI from settling a patent dispute with Microsoft such that MMI would agree to pay for the licenses to Microsoft patents, which could have been bad for Android, overall. Perhaps Google's need to fight on two fronts simultaneously is creating strategic problems for them.

Admittedly, this could provide some major advantages for Apple in the other suits that can still move forward. As noted, it creates a situation where MMI has significantly less tactical flexibility because they need to deal with Apple's offense, but can only defend. Though I'm not a lawyer, I think it is easy to see that this is the case.

Actually, that only stops the moto vs apple suits, it does not stop the apple vs moto suit. The delay essentially means, google, owning those patents now, is in a pressure position to retroactively licence them, as well as cross license some notable apple patents, in an effort to settle before moto loses (and that might happen BEFORE the merger, and that would be BAD for google). This would see a massive change of money from google to apple, a few new rights for android, and a royalty paid by google (not manufacturers) on every single android phone sold or to be sold in the future.

It's kind of a dick move, yea, but foul on Google's lawyers (and motos far more practiced ones) for not seeing that potential. Its a sign google bought moto in desperation, not preparation.

Clearly. This has been done hastily at best.Also Apple is obviously trying to use Google stance regarding software patents against them.

Google has said several times that they consider them evil and will never enforce theirs but they already have used HTC as a proxy to start a legal fight against Apple - which is fair enough but is in complete contradiction of their stated opinion of such legal fights.

If the Motorola suit gets rejected then Google would be essentially forced to make a choice between being true to their word and renouncing to pursue the suit against Apple or reinitiate the legal dispute on its own but they will then have to explain what makes them think software patents have become suddenly non evil.

Disclaimer: I consider all the Apple vs X or X vs Apple lawsuits - morally and economically - absurd whichever the plaintiff, I'm only trying to explain what's going on and why.

Problem Apple: Motorola has alleged violations of Motorola patents by Apple which *already took place.* Anyone who took Logic and Philosophy 101 can see that the lawsuit in question remains perfectly valid,

To present an analogy: Given that I ("Mr. Moto") currently own a house, and you ("Mr. Apple") drive your car through my front wall, and you refuse to pay for the repairs (patent licensing), I can sue you to recover the repair costs as long as I own the house in question, and I still have standing to continue the suit even after I sell the house to Mr. Brin; You, Mr. Apple, did in fact cause the damage and did in fact refuse to pay for the repairs, and those facts are historical fact which no one can change. Not even Mr. "Magical" Steve Jobs.

Why is it on every tech blog there are people are insult the website and says that it use to be better quality? You would think that websites would increase in quality as time goes on. I highly doubt raging in the comments section is the appropriate way to demand better and accurate content from the author of the article. Criticism can be delivered positively.

Problem Apple: Motorola has alleged violations of Motorola patents by Apple which *already took place.* Anyone who took Logic and Philosophy 101 can see that the lawsuit in question remains perfectly valid,

To present an analogy: Given that I ("Mr. Moto") currently own a house, and you ("Mr. Apple") drive your car through my front wall, and you refuse to pay for the repairs (patent licensing), I can sue you to recover the repair costs as long as I own the house in question, and I still have standing to continue the suit even after I sell the house to Mr. Brin; You, Mr. Apple, did in fact cause the damage and did in fact refuse to pay for the repairs, and those facts are historical fact which no one can change. Not even Mr. "Magical" Steve Jobs.

Florian Mueller is paid PR masquerading as pro anti-software patents. Can't believe this site still believes on bias information posted on FOSS. If you want balance view about Android legal case go to Groklaw.

Problem Apple: Motorola has alleged violations of Motorola patents by Apple which *already took place.* Anyone who took Logic and Philosophy 101 can see that the lawsuit in question remains perfectly valid,

To present an analogy: Given that I ("Mr. Moto") currently own a house, and you ("Mr. Apple") drive your car through my front wall, and you refuse to pay for the repairs (patent licensing), I can sue you to recover the repair costs as long as I own the house in question, and I still have standing to continue the suit even after I sell the house to Mr. Brin; You, Mr. Apple, did in fact cause the damage and did in fact refuse to pay for the repairs, and those facts are historical fact which no one can change. Not even Mr. "Magical" Steve Jobs.

In regards to your analogy.

Mr Apple has refused to pay for the repairs due to the costs being above fair market value. Mr Moto wants his day in court.

Mr Moto saw an opportunity and has sold the house to Mr Goog with the broken wall. Mr Goog not wanting to be stuck with a broken wall repair bill, has made the sale conditional that Mr Moto can't litigate on their behalf. As Mr Goog does not yet own the home, neither can he.Mr Apple sees the wiggle room and has moved to have the case delayed until the sale is approved. At that time Mr Goog, the new owner, "may" have to file a new case against Mr Apple.

This is falls under Logics and Philosophy 102. The ole magic is not needed.

I read this stuff to keep abreast of the latest tech news. But I'm really sick of these companies innovating by litigating. The honest to God truth is that no matter how exact a copy someone makes of the iPad, if the iPad is superior, it will always win. All this litigation does is make me take my cash and go someplace else.

Apple fanboys can make all the nuance, scorn-filled, condescending comments they want - but the fact remains that Apple seems to patented stuff that only seems patent-able by guys with law degrees. Thank god no one patented the general look and feel of an automobile or motorcycle.

I'm looking for the newest hottest slate with a grid of icons. It may even have rounded corners.

The openness Google seems to cherish is in Android, and it is the least open mobile OS anyway.

Huh? You can argue exactly how open Android is, or whether that has any benefit to normal users, but it's objectively more open than iOS under any reasonable definition.

nekoniaow wrote:

Google has said several times that they consider them evil and will never enforce theirs but they already have used HTC as a proxy to start a legal fight against Apple - which is fair enough but is in complete contradiction of their stated opinion of such legal fights.

Apple sued HTC first. It's not inconsistent to believe software patents should be abolished, but be willing to use them in defensive countersuits against a patent aggressor.

USONOFA wrote:

If you want balance view about Android legal case go to Groklaw.

Well, they're not exactly unbiased either. Maybe if you average the two.

For Apple, Motorola is just one of its targets in an ongoing effort to stifle Android-based competitors based on intellectual property lawsuits.

Ummm...errr...whaaaaaat?

Motorola SUED Apple. Apple counter-sued in defense. Motorola is the aggressor here. How did this even pass editorial review? Does Ars even have editorial review for accuracy?

I remember when Ars was actually a decent site for ACCURATE information. Now it's all just sensationalized, inaccurate crap. May as well change it's name to DailyTech2.com or, more appropriately, AOL.com.

I think it's already been established Moto sued to invalidate Apple's patents that they were using to sue others over android. They already knew they were next in apple's crosshairs and decided to use offense as a good defense.